Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    RE: .0  Mike,
    
                     I would have to agree with Don...Gensis I has to be
    "out" of time and since God created time, I guess he could be in both
    places at any time.
    
    
    Dave

    re: 0 & 1
    
    I have a problem with the phrase "out of time"...I don't believe there
    is such a thing in the ultimate sense, perhaps this a statement
    relative to Man's concept of time/measure.  The infinite is not beyond
    the boundaries, but constitutes THE ultimate boundary.  Eternal is not
    beyond the boundary but again is THE ultimate boundary.  And because we
    can't measure the "time" of "DAY" or "Eternity" doesn't necessary mean
    "beyond" time, merely beyond our ability to "measure" time.
    
    In this light, every thing/event exists "within time", there's no thing
    "beyond time", that seems impossible in effect, though it may sound
    logical...I think the "beyond time" phrase is merely the opposite of
    "within time" and is conceived as such because of Western dychotomic
    thinking...
    
    Time is the measure of motion and existence/life, God did not create
    "time", but created all things "Within Time", within "measure".  Think
    about this...can Time be created?  It would seem that it would take
    time to create time...so it doesn't seem to me that time was ever
    created, nor is it ever mentioned in any scripture I've read..
    
    Anyway...
    
    Playtoe

    I read that Genesis 1 wasn't written until four hundred years after
    the next five books. So the author had the first five books committed
    to memory as he sat down to write Gen 1. Can you imagine what he would
    have written if he were living in Artica at the time ? On day would
    have been six months or something like that. -:)


    Peace
    Jim

    I tend to agree that God is "within time", and view time as an inherent
    feature of reality.  My reason for suggestion that God is not only in
    time but also "outside" of it is that God, being Eternal, has *always*
    participated in (and responded to) creation, and thus is not dependent
    on a past that preceded Him/Her.  If time is an inherent feature of
    reality, then God did not "create" time any more than He/She "created"
    "goodness" or "love"; rather, I believe that temporality is an absolute
    attribute of God, like the other attributes that we assign to the
    Deity.  Thus God Eternally creates and responds to that which is
    outside of Him/Herself (which we call the "world").  That implies that
    the God did not simply create the universe out of nothing (in contrast
    with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo), but rather has Eternally
    related to and interacted with an outside reality, even if was a
    chaotic void that preceded what we now call the "world".  It was this
    long creative process that evoked the novelty and complexity that
    makes up the universe that we now know.

    God took billions of years to evoke the universe as we now know it. 
    Creation is, in my view, a perpetual process, one that only the Eternal
    Divine Reality has *always* participated in and always will.  We had a
    definite beginning, and will someday die as well.  But during our short
    lives, we can contribute to the creative process that God always
    participates in, and respond to the creative possibilities that God,
    the Eternal Creator, presents to us.

    -- Mike

    I feel that time was created when God allegedly spoke the
    words "I AM".   I also feel time (as we know it) does not exist
    beyond the 3-D physical reality we are accustomed to.
    
    Karen

re: Note 253.5 by Karen "Dervish on rap tour"

>    I feel that time was created when God allegedly spoke the
>    words "I AM".   I also feel time (as we know it) does not exist
>    beyond the 3-D physical reality we are accustomed to.
    
This is similar to the hypothesis of several TOEs ("Theories Of Everything") 
in the cosmological physics realm.  Before the "Big Bang" (the utterance of "I 
Am") time itself did not exist.

FWIW,  Peace,

Jim

p.s.  Karen, don't let your rapture rupture!  .-)  

    Perhaps all we can say about what did or did not precede the Big Bang
    is that we don't know.  Not only that, but I suspect that we can't
    know.  What we can do is speculate on what seems metaphysically
    credible.  On the other hand, the danger in drawing theological
    implications about the origin of time from this boundary of perception
    is that it can represent another appeal to the "God of the Gaps". 
    Although it is true that this is a gap that we may be incapable of
    closing, I am not sure how significant that distinction is for
    theological purposes.

    I believe that we can conceive of possibilities that suggest that time
    transcends the Big Bang.  For example, there is the familiar suggestion
    that the Universe has experienced a prior infinite series of Big Bangs
    and Big Crunches.  True or not, verifiable or not, it does represent a
    way of incorporating the Big Bang into a broader metaphysical framework
    in which time was not merely a creation of this universe.

    Ian Barbour's excellent book, "Science in an Age of Religion",
    discusses the metaphysical and theological implications of modern
    science, including some of the points that I just raised.  He points
    out that creation ex nihilo is "an ontological and not a historical
    assertion" that "expresses the sense of wonder and mystery typical of
    numinous experience".  From my own perspective, I believe that it is
    consistent with a theology of continuing Divine creation, through
    persuasion rather than force, to suggest that God did not merely will
    the universe into existence through a wave of his Omnipotent hands
    (male hands, no doubt).  Rather, a metaphor for the creation that I
    find much more appealing is that of a sort of Cosmic unfolding.  In
    this view, God nurtured the Universe into existence (perhaps from a
    prior, primordial chaos).  Thus, rather than a Big Bang, we had a
    unfolding of a kind of Cosmic Egg.  This represents a view of God the
    Mother, nurturing and luring creation into its birth.

    -- Mike

    This is partly an examination of the nature of time.  Do you think that
    Jesus was not conscious of the double-meaning he employed when He said,
    
    			'Before Abraham was, I AM.'
    
    The mystery of time is implied in the Tetragrammaton (IHWH -- another
    foursome for Carole, by the way), which can be translated,
    
    			'I Am, That is What I Am.'
    
    In computers, we call that an infinite loop, but God being God, it is
    also the whole of the self-referencing chain -- and infinitely more. 
    (There are other interpretations for the Tegragrammaton, by the way.)
    
    By the way, I believe that we invented time.
    
    DR

    I've never been sure if people invented time or if God did for us.
    I have long believed that God operates in more dimensions then we
    do. We seem to handle three ok but start to lose it when we go to
    four. Our understanding of time is very incomplete. I suspect that
    for reasons best known to God we have enough of an understanding of
    time to get by on but not much more. God being able to operate "out
    of time" explains quite a bit.
    
    Someone once told me that they thought God saw all time at one time.
    Just as we see a whole line and not just individual points at a time
    so God can view the whole continuium of time. Why not? Is that really
    a streach if you believe that God is a real God? I think not.
    
    So did God create the world in 6 24 hour days or 24,000,000 year long
    days, or out of time completely? Probably doesn't matter. The words
    in the Bible were most likely to impress upon us that God *did* create
    the world and that He took as long or as short a time (or not time) as
    He wanted.
    
    		Alfred

| I've never been sure if people invented time or if God did for us.

	Wasn't it the Timelords? ;-)

| Someone once told me that they thought God saw all time at one time.
| Just as we see a whole line and not just individual points at a time
| so God can view the whole continuum of time. Why not? Is that really
| a stretch if you believe that God is a real God? I think not.

	That's a very real statement. God is all powerful, and the creator. He
should be able to see time as past present and future in any order, any time. 

	One thing that always puzzles me is dejavue (sp?)(sorry, it wasn't in
spell check). I can remember once dreaming about something happening at school 
(senior year) and waking up wondering why I had to dream about school? Two days 
later what I dreamt about happened. It was the weirdest feeling catching up with
your future! ;-) I never had a similar dream that I can remember, but I always 
wondered if dejavue isn't just a dream. Sorry to get off track.


Glen

    I have been reading Charles Hartshorne's book "The Divine Relativity",
    which argues for a panentheist understanding of God.  In this
    understanding, God has two natures:  Absolute and Relative.  The
    Absolute nature is characterized by abstract qualities that are not
    dependent on any state of the world.  This is God's creative aspect
    (which Whitehead refers to as the "mental" pole of experience); it
    represents the immutable and unsurpassable qualities of God that cannot
    change.  On the other hand, the Relative aspect of God *does* change
    over time.  Without going into Hartshorne's (and Whitehead's) argument
    in detail, the point Hartshorne makes is, for one thing, that a
    *completely* immutable God is logically contradictory, and furthermore
    that such immutability does not even truly characterize perfection.

    In panentheist terms, this is the part of God that encompasses the
    world (and represents Whitehead's "physical" pole).  This aspect of God
    is also unsurpassable by anything in the world, but does change and
    increase in value over time as it accumulates the body of experience in
    the world, and as the world develops novelty and complexity.  It is
    contingent on the present and past state of the world at any time. 
    Thus God's Absolute perfection is unchanging, while the Relative aspect
    of God (which encompasses the world, and which is thus characterized by
    "internal relations" with the world) responds compassionately to the
    changes that take place over time in the universe.  It is the Absolute
    aspect of God that acts creatively in time, and the Relative aspect
    that responds correspondingly to the events that occur in the world.

    I agree with the view of process theology that God is neither
    omnipotent nor powerless.  In this view, "time" represents the process
    of Divine creativity, and thus is an inevitable aspect of the divine
    nature.  "Time" is not a creation of God in this view, and God could
    not have created the universe in any other way but through a slow
    process of development and change.  Creativity occurs through time, in
    this view, and because creativity is an inevitable aspect of God's
    Absolute nature, time is inevitably a part of God also.  Thus God's
    omniscience represents a complete and true knowlege of the world as it
    is and has ever been, but *not* as it will be; in this view, even God
    experiences novelty.

    Certainly this view is not in agreement with the theistic view of God
    that has dominated much of Christian natural theology, and which has
    permeated into much of the popular understanding of God.  However, I
    believe that panentheism solves a host of theological problems, and I
    also believe that it is metaphysically consistent with much of our
    understanding of the universe.  Unfortunately, as Hartshorne has
    pointed out, many atheistic critics of Christianity have argued against
    the theistic understanding of God, because this has been equated in the
    popular mind with what God must necessarily be.  I believe that Ian
    Barbour's book presents a powerful argument for an integrated
    perspective of science and process thought.

    -- Mike

    
        Re: .0 and others
    
        Referring to God as "She" is error.
        Jesus consistantly refers to God as "Father," a masculine noun.
        Christians base their faith on the teachings of Jesus.
        As a Christian, I'm offended by inappropriate references to God.
    
        In languages having gender-based nouns, indefinite articles and
        adjectives, such errors are obvious.  For example, it would be
        incorrect to say, "la pere," or, "le mere."
    
        Tony
    

    Tony, I believe that both male and female pronouns are appropriate when
    referring to God.  You are free to refrain from using "She" if you
    wish; but I will continue to refer to God in both male and female
    terms.
    
    -- Mike

Re: .12

Tony,

	Does God have a penis or testacles?  I think not.  Does God have a
vagina or ovaries?  I think not.

	"I AM" reveals no gender.

	When Jesus called God, "Father," I am convinced it was a statement
of relationship rather than a statement of gender.

	I believe that we're imposing an enormous attitudinal limitation
on God (and thus doing her a great disservice) by perpetuating the culturally
biased notion that God is empty of female qualities, charateristics and
features.

Peace,
Richard

    Re: 253.12, 253.13, 253.14
    
    See related topics 11.*, 121.*, 154.*
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    RE: .14
    
    Do you enjoy being a scoffer?
    
    Masculine and feminine transcend maleness and femaleness.  Inanimate
    objects have no reproductive organs, either, yet they have gender. 
    English is one of the languages that does not exhibit gender for other 
    than male or female.  
    
    RE .14 & .13
    
    How would you men like to be referenced as "she"?  God makes His gender
    known throughout the Bible.  Jesus called Him Father (masculine noun). 
    Would you refer to your father as "she"? 
    
    Christians profess belief in the authority of Jesus.  Some are even
    willing to subject themselves to the moral laws of the Old Testament 
    (not to be confused with ceremonial or civil laws), as did Jesus. ;-)
    
    If you are not Christian, please reveal yourself so.  As Christians, 
    we must not be confused by the mechanics of our native tongue(s), 
    as this would please and lend credence to the pantheists and sophists.
    
    Tony
    

    re:  .16
    
    See the Book of Wisdom for references to a feminine deity.  Jesus spoke
    of the Father, but the one to come after, the Holy Spirit, is
    essentially feminine.  References to the Holy Spirit as He simply do
    not correspond to the attributes attributed to Her.
    
    PS - I am a Christian.
    
    DR

re: last few...

The Bible also contains such images of God as being a Mother Hen gathering 
her chick under her wings...

Sure, there are more masculine images, and as Tony rightly says, gender 
transcends sex, however in English, pronouns such as "he" and "she" seem more 
closely tied to sex than gender when refering to subjects which in fact *have* 
sexual attributes.  ("She is a fine ship" is significantly different from "She 
is an excellent doctor".)

Me?  Well, I tend to obviate the problem of such distinctions by avoiding 
pronouns when refering to God.

The Peace of the Lord be with you,

Jim

>> The Bible also contains such images of God as being a Mother Hen gathering 
>> her chick under her wings...

    This is allegory.  The direct references to God throughout the Bible 
    are masculine.  He is Lord God, not Lady God.
    
    As for the Book of Wisdom, I have not read it.  However, as a Christian
    I would not let anything I read supplant the morals, principals, and
    doctrine in the Bible.  I would not be swayed by the Bhaghavad Ghita, 
    the Koran, Das Kapital, or Mein Kampf, though I may find them
    entertaining or informative.  
    
    To me, books written to explain the Bible are suspect.  Attendance in a
    Bible-believing church, and bible studies with a good concordance, 
    cross-referenced Bible, Greek and Hebrew lexical references, and a prayer 
    before study comprise the way to biblical comprehension.
    
    I have an MSDOS-based program with all but the Church attendance and
    prayer.  The publisher's distribution criterion is that it's free to
    whoever can give away two more copies.  Any takers?
    
    Tony
    

    This discussion of the gender of God is very interesting, but perhaps
    we can take it to a more appropriate topic.
    
    (Gentle nudge from co-moderator)
    
    -- Mike

    Sorry Mike -

    The Book of Wisdom is in that part of the Bible called the Apocrypha.

    DR

    Don, I think you meant to address Tony instead of me.  I think very
    highly of the book of Wisdom, and I definitely consider it part of the
    Bible.

    In fact (getting back to the topic of Creation), I wanted to quote from
    several Biblical sources (including Wisdom) about Divine creation,
    because I think they present an interesting picture of creativity as an
    original and continuing Divine attribute:

    God as creator of the world:

        In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the
        earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep,
        while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.  (Gen.
        1:1-2)

    Expression of the Divine creative principle:

        The Lord by wisdom founded the earth;
            by understanding he established the heavens;
        by his knowledge the deeps broke open,
            and the clouds drop down the dew.  (Prov. 3:19-20)

        For she [Wisdom] is a breath of the power of God,
        and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty  (Wis. 7:25)

        In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
        Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came
        into being through him, and without him not one thing came into
        being.  (John 1:1-3)

        The Lord created me [Sophia/Wisdom] at the beginning of his work,
            the first of his acts of long ago.
        Ages ago I was set up,
            at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
        When there were no depths I was brought forth,
            when there were no springs abounding with water.
        Before the mountains had been shaped,
            before the hills, I was brought forth--
        when he had not yet made earth and fields,
            or the world's first bits of soil.
        When he established the heavens, I was there,
            when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
        when he made firm the skies above,
            when he established the fountains of the deep,
        when he assigned to the sea its limit,
            so that the waters might not transgress his command,
        when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
            then I was beside him, like a master worker;
        and I was daily his delight,
            rejoicing before him always,
        rejoicing in his inhabited world
            and delighting in the human race.  (Prov. 8:22-31)

    The goodness of the creation:

        God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.
        (Gen. 1:31)

    Wisdom's continuing creative activity:

        Although she [Wisdom] is but one, she can do all things,
        and while remaining in herself, she renews all things;
        in every generation she passed into holy souls
        and makes them friends of God and prophets;  (Wis. 7:27)

    -- Mike

    I agree that God is immutable in Her goodness; that represents Her
    Absolute side.  However, I also believe that God encompasses and
    responds to the world, and that aspect of God does change over time. 
    This represents the panentheist concept of God--that God is in us, and
    we are in God.

    From the point of view of process theology, God's attributes can be
    summarized as encompassing these two sets of attributes:

    	Absolute			Relative
        Abstract			Concrete
        Independent			Dependent
        Necessary			Contingent
    	Creative			Responsive
    	Immutable			Changing

    The left column encompasses God's Supremely absolute attributes, those
    that do not change over time.  The right column represents God's
    Supreme responsiveness to the universe, which incorporates the
    universe, and which is related to it over time.  The evolutionary
    character of the universe is a testament to the continuing process of
    creation, which I believe is a fundamental divine attribute; the
    universe has evolved over time, from the primordial universe of the Big
    Bang, to the creation of stars, to the evolution of life, to the
    development of conscious and self-reflective creatures (humanity).  I
    believe that God has participated in this process of evolution over
    time, and continues to participate to this day. 

    -- Mike

    
    This was note 23.  It has been modified and resubmitted with apologies
    to any and all who may have been offended by the original.  
    
    The "Book of Wisdom" is among the books given the name "Apocrypha" 
    for good reason, said reasons also part of the explanation for its 
    exclusion from the Authorized Version of the Bible.  They contain 
    doctrine and references to ritual and ceremonial practices whose 
    origin was deemed questionable by Reformation scholars.  Some are
    self-contradictory or contradict other books.  To be included in the
    New Testament, a book had to meet all of the following criteria. 
    
    	1. Written by or upon the authority of an Apostle.
    
    	2. Used by all the churches existing around 400 AD or accepted 
    	   as inspired by all those churches.
    
    	3. Can be shown to assist and edify spiritual growth.
    
    	4. The Holy Spirit gave testimony, through the churches, of the 
    	   book's (or books') authority.
    
    For these reasons, as Christians, we must avoid teachings that exhibit 
    moral and doctrinal deviation from the teachings of Christ.  One of the 
    major characteristics of God is that He is immutable.  The World may 
    change, but He doesn't.  In fundamentalist churches, pantheism and
    Christianity are mutually exclusive.
    
    The most important thing of all is your salvation.  The gift of eternal
    life is there but for the asking (John 3:16).
    
    As for the Creation, God may have "jump-started" the Universe,
    thereby circumventing "billions and billions" of years.
    
        Tony
    

    I started a new topic on the Apocrypha.
    
    -- Mike

    I can't comment on the compatibility or incompatibility of pantheism
    with Christianity, other than to point out that I am not a pantheist. 
    Hartshorne argues (and I agree with him) that there are three basic
    positions that you can take with respect to God's absoluteness and
    relativity:

    	1) God is Supremely Absolute in all aspects (theism)
    	2) God is Supremely Absolute in some aspects, and Supremely
    	Relative to the world in other aspects (panentheism)
    	3) God is Supremely Relative to the world in all aspects
    	(pantheism).

    I believe in the second alternative, panentheism.

    -- Mike

    "God is not a creator of end times but has always been a creator of new
    beginnings.  God is with us, renewing, redeeming, creating new
    situations in an unending chain of events to lead us out of
    human-centered darkness into the light of truth that brings hope."

    		John C. Trevor
    		"Brethren Life and Thought", Winter 1989

    Did anyone happen to catch the news over the weekend about the latest
    astronomical discovery concerning the Big Bang?  

    One of the mysteries of cosmology had been how the universe came to
    become the complex and heterogeneous entity we know it to be today.  The
    universe is not smoothly uniform; it has empty space in some places,
    and stars and planets and people in other places.  A universe that was
    one uniform blob would have been very uninteresting--there would be no
    astronomers making discoveries, for one thing, and no theologians
    speculating on those discoveries, for another--so we can all be glad
    that the universe is complex, and therefore interesting.  But a
    universe with the smooth rich consistency of vanilla yogurt would also
    have been consistent with what astronomers had observed about the
    origins of the universe, and therein was a puzzle.

    One nice thing about the speed of light is that if you look far enough
    away through a telescope, you are also looking back in time, because it
    took the light that long to get here.  That means that astronomers can
    look quite far back in time with powerful enough telescopes--not quite
    all the way back to the Big Bang 15 billion years ago, but pretty
    close.  One thing they can do is use a radio telescope to measure radio
    waves that were emitted eons ago.  One thing they found was that the
    Big Bang left a residual background radiation across the universe, of 3
    degrees Kelvin, and this radiation could be detected with radio
    telescopes.  The only problem was that the radiation they detected
    seemed to be uniform, in every direction they looked.  So how did the
    universe become so clumpy, as we know it today, if it was originally
    created after the Big Bang as a uniformly shapeless blob?

    Apparently, over the weekend, it was reported that they did find
    convincing evidence of clumpiness in the universe in its very early
    stages.  I don't quite understand what they found, but it appears that
    now we now know that the universe has been "interesting" (in the sense
    of non-uniform)  from the point of its very creation, and this is being
    hailed as a significant scientific finding.  

    I'm not sure that this finding has any great theological significance,
    but it is an interesting discovery.  I do believe that God has
    participated in the process of creation continuously from the very
    beginning, and I also believe that the universe is interesting rather
    rather boring because God wishes for the universe to be interesting. 
    That is because I believe that complexity and heterogeneity have
    enhanced the experience of the universe and those who populate it, and
    that this enhancement has in turn enhanced the divine life as well. 
    This discovery certainly doesn't prove the existence of God; that is a
    matter of faith, and it can't be proven or disproved by something like
    this.  But those who do believe in God can view these finding through
    the lens of their faith.  I view the early non-uniformity of the
    universe after the Big Bang as an expression, from this point of view,
    of God's influence in the promotion of a complex and interesting
    universe from the very beginning.

    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    I did hear that some scientists were quoted as saying that it was like
    'seeing the face of God'.  I didn't get to see the computer simulated
    photos.
    
    Interesting topic.
    
    Ro
    

   In the beginning there was...


   To me The Big Bang theory and Genesis are both metaphors in that they
   are both incomplete explanations of the moment after.  Both have a
   beauty that could only be inspired.  

   Allison

re Note 253.29 by DEMING::VALENZA:

>     Apparently, over the weekend, it was reported that they did find
>     convincing evidence of clumpiness in the universe in its very early
>     stages.  I don't quite understand what they found, but it appears that
>     now we now know that the universe has been "interesting" (in the sense
>     of non-uniform)  from the point of its very creation, and this is being
>     hailed as a significant scientific finding.  
  
        As a non-astronomer, I am puzzled as to why this discovery
        was so astounding.  If previous big-bang theories were
        correct, then there had to be some point at which the
        universe became "interesting".  They merely found evidence
        that this happened at a particular stage of the process --
        the fact that it must have happened at SOME point (assuming
        initial uniformity) is obvious because of the current
        universe.

        Does this discovery in any way change the theory, or does it
        "merely" support it?

        Bob

    Bob, I'm not exactly sure either why it has been taken as such a
    profound finding; I do know that for some time the uniformity of the 3
    degrees K microwave radiation was a serious puzzle for cosmologists,
    because there was no mechanism for explaining how the "interesting"
    universe that we know today could have arisen from the Big Bang.  None
    of the evidence they had up to now could explain how things like
    galaxies were able to form.  It seemed like the universe was smooth and
    uniform after the Big Bang, and then suddenly it got clumpy and
    interesting.

    Perhaps it is like the discovery of plate techtonics in geology. Anyone
    who looked at a map of the world could see that Africa and South
    America might have fit together at one time, but until geologists could
    come up with a mechanism to explain it (via plate techtonics),
    continental drift was not not accepted by the scientific community. 
    The same could be said for evolution--the evidence that species evolved
    was clearly there, but until Darwin could come up with a mechanism to
    explain it, biologists were hesitant to buy into it.  In the case of
    the Big Bang, its existence was generally accepted (the evidence is
    very overwhelming anyway), but with some troublesome doubts.  This
    discovery apparently resolved that stumbling block.

    Not being an astronomer either, I'm not sure if I've quite got that
    right, but that is my perception of its significance.

    -- Mike

    .8
    
    Actually the tetragammon is yod, he, vav, he which means He will be.
    
    

    Conan,
    
    I understand that another reasonable translation is: The Becoming One.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re .35,
    
    > I understand that another reasonable translation is: The Becoming
    One.
    
    And in this it could be said that the Creator is reflected in each
    one of us, for we are all becoming ones.
    
    Karen

    40,000 years?   
    20,000 years?   
    How old does the Bible say the universe is again ????

re.13

Hi Dave, 

>How old does the Bible say the universe is again ????

That depends who you ask of course. I personally hold the belief that the
age of the universe is impossible for us to know (that is, how long is
eternity past?), the age of the earth is also difficult to know, however,
the age of man (Adam) according to the Bible began about 6000 years ago.
This means Native Americans became native 8*) after Noah's flood. 

Regards,
Ace 

|    40,000 years?   
|    20,000 years?   
    
    How do you know?  Were you there?

re .13

;    How old does the Bible say the universe is again ????

	Dave,

	It does not say, it talks of six creation days. A day can mean an age,
	for example if one spoke of Shakespear's day. Hence, the Genesis account
	helps us to see the six different stages of creation (also compare 
	Genesis 2:4 were the whole creation event is spoken of as "In the day").

	However, because genealogical records were kept from the on set, from the
	Bible point of view man has been around just over six thousand years.

	Phil. 

|	It does not say, it talks of six creation days. A day can mean an age,
|	for example if one spoke of Shakespear's day. Hence, the Genesis account
|	helps us to see the six different stages of creation (also compare 
|	Genesis 2:4 were the whole creation event is spoken of as "In the day").
    
    That isn't quite correct, Phil.
    
        Creation Days: Solar or Age?

    1. Each day was divided into periods of darkness and light - exactly as
       a solar day in Moses' day and ours.
    2. On the 4th day, God constituted the sun in its functions with
       regard to the earth.  Botany was created on the 3rd day.
    3. The Hebrew text implies an instantaneity of accomplishment (Genesis
       1:3).
    4. Moses obviously intended to convey the idea of a 24-hour day:
       morning-evening; night-day; 1st day, 2nd day, etc.
    5. Whenever "yom" is limited or modified by a numeral or ordinal, it is
       always a literal, solar day.  "Olam" is "age."
    6. "Day-age" cannot explain the reference to "evening and morning"
       which describes each day's work.
    7. The working of the 4th commandment clearly refutes the theory of a
       day-age (Exodus 20:8-11).
    8. God's completed creation would not have been "very good" (Genesis
       1:31).
    9. If some species of life became extinct during the day-age period,
       how could Adam have dominion over or name them (Genesis 1:28; 2:19)?
    10. What the import of "you will surely die" if all creature were dying
        anyway.  And if not dying, some were millions of years old.
    11. Mathematically, the human race cannot reach back more than
        10-15,000 years at the most.
    12. Relate the present fears of animal preservation to the day-age
        theory in which they lived millions of years.
    13. Adam lived a portion of the 6th day, all of the 7th and in a sense,
        a portion of the 8th.
    14. The necessary pollination process for certain plants was not
        possible if the day-age theory is correct.

    Creation Solar Days refutes:

    1. Atheism
    2. Polytheism
    3. Pantheism
    4. Materialism
    5. Dualism
    6. Humanism
    7. Evolutionism
    
    Gap Theory Refuted
    
    1. Explicitly contradicted by the 4th commandment (Exodus 20:8-11).
    2. The Bible teaches clearly that sin and death entered because of
       Adam's sin (Romans 5:12, 8:20-22).  Fossil records and geologic ages
       based on suffering and death.
    3. The summary statement of Genesis 2:1 embraces all the work of
       Genesis 1.  The primeval creation of heaven and earth was the first act
       of the first day calling into existence the basic elements of the
       space-mass-time continuum.
    4. None of the standard translations renders "was" (hayetha) as
       "became" (which is really "haphak").
    5. "Create" (bara) and "make" (asah) are quite interchangeable.  (1:21
       "created," 1:25 "made" - 1:26 "make," 1:27 "created").
    6. Isaiah 45:18 uses "tohu," not "in vain," the same word as in Genesis
       1:2, "void," indicating that the first verse is not the end of creation
       purpose.  God made the earth to be inhabited, not to be left empty,
       void.
    7. Any pre-Adamite men (believed by advocates of geologic column of
       ages and accepted by many Christians) lived and died without a Savior. 
       Jesus came in answer to Adam's sin and need.
    8. Satan's sin and fall happened in heaven, not on earth.
    9. The angels were created after the materialization of light (1st day)
       and before the foundation of the earth (3rd day) according to Psalm 104
       and its clear sequence of creation events (vss. 2-6).
    10. The Gap Theory would be a Ruin and Reconstruction and Ruin and
        Reconstruction theory.  If God reconstructed His creation after Satan
        ruined it, why not after Adam ruined it - without the need of a
        Redeemer?
    11. The Gap Theory seeks to harmonize the biblical chronology with the
        accepted geological ages which are based on fossil records.  Such has
        allowed a take-over by evolution of the school systems, news media, and
        most institutions of America.
    12. The Gap Theory thus accepts the suffering and death of God's
        creatures prior to Adam's sin and judgment.
    13. Every verse in Genesis 1 (except the 1st verse) begins with the
        conjunction "and," thus being sequentially and chronologically
        connected.
    14. Lucifer, who became Satan, would not have been called "son of the
        morning" (Isaiah 14:12) prior to the creation of light in Genesis 1:3.
    15. How could Satan be placed in Eden prior to its creation (Genesis
        2:8) and at such time as when the earth was covered with water?

re.17

Mike,

I agree with the first half of your note but as you might have guessed
disagree with the explanation of the second half. Unfortunately, I do
not have time to refute each point. I've studied this matter thoroughly
as you have and I'm convinced that there is compelling evidence in the
Bible for "The Gap". However, I also believe that it is a minor point
and not the centerpiece of the revelation in the Bible. 

What I'm not certain about is whether refuting the Gap theory is fueled
by the need for accuracy in interpretation or the need to head off the
potential implications of an older earth. I hold dearly the former but
do not understand (and hold no sympathy for) the latter. It seems that
refutation of the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is always introduced
when evolution is being discussed. I stand against the teaching of
evolution but do not understand the concerns about an older earth.
Can you clarify the driving concern about this?

Regards,
Ace

|What I'm not certain about is whether refuting the Gap theory is fueled
|by the need for accuracy in interpretation or the need to head off the
|potential implications of an older earth. I hold dearly the former but
|do not understand (and hold no sympathy for) the latter. It seems that
|refutation of the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is always introduced
|when evolution is being discussed. I stand against the teaching of
|evolution but do not understand the concerns about an older earth.
|Can you clarify the driving concern about this?
    
    Ace, I agree with you: the age of the earth itself isn't important. 
    However, I currently do not see how you can maintain accuracy of the 
    Bible with an older earth.
    
    Here you have, in my opinion, the 2 key verses that give TE's and PC's
    the most problems.

Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Mark 10:6  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

    The Hebrew phrase for "In the beginning" is written as though it was one 
    word with no space between "In" and "beginning."  There is no article
    in the Hebrew.  The Hebrew word for "beginning" is "re'shiyth," which
    is translated "beginning" in most dictionaries but can also mean
    "first, firstfruits, best, chiefest, or principal."  There are 51
    occurrences of "re'shiyth" in the O.T.  In only 11 of these do we find
    a preposition:

    Hebrew             Number               English
      be                 6                   in, at, by, etc.
      me                 4                   from
      le                 1                   to, for

    There is also one place where there is no preposition but "re'shiyth"
    is used as an adverb and translators added an English preposition.  In
    all 12 cases, "re'shiyth" means "beginning, first, or early."

    In Genesis 1:1 the Hebrew preposition is "be" which is usually
    translated as "in."  The French and German translations use the
    equivalent of "at" - "Au commencement" and "am Anfang" or "At the
    beginning," which sounds better.  Why?  The word "in" has acquired 
    fairy tale status over the years, as in "once upon a time."  "At" is 
    preferable because Genesis 1:1 refers to a point in time, not a duration.  
    The TE and PC views are evolutionary in their roots and not a completed 
    work as noted in the point in time of Genesis 1. 

    I still maintain that the views of TE's and PC's degrade God's Word and
    the message of the Gospel.  The Precambrian period is said to have
    begun 4.5B years ago and the origin of the universe 8-12B years ago
    (based on recent Hubble calculations).  The problem here is the time
    it's taken the material of the alleged "Big Bang" to form into a
    spherical globe we call earth.  From these figures, it's obvious that
    the creation of the heavens and the earth could not, in an
    evolutionary framework, have both occurred "At the beginning."  The
    earth would have only formed 70% along the timeline until now.

    As for humans, TE's and PC's allow for 6 whole ages to pass (6 days of
    Creation) so that they can reconcile science and the Bible.  The
    problem here is that our Lord Jesus Christ in Mark 10:6 says otherwise. 
    In other versions, the Greek preposition "apo" is translated "from"
    (KJV), but this also includes "at," so once again we're facing "At the
    beginning."  There is no room in Scripture for the gap theory.  It
    undermines the authority of God's Word.

    How does this degrade the Gospel message?  First of all, it tells us
    that we have a God that allows a huge amount of time to pass before
    creating us, implying that He's not really interested in us.  It's also
    saying that the earth is His experimental lab rather than the home of
    His created loved ones.  Almighty God doesn't need to experiment.  The
    TE/PC theories also postpone Christ's Second Coming with a extremely
    short time period on one end, prefaced by an extremely long boring
    period.  The final episode will be an "exciting" but sinful short
    period right at the end.  Once again, you have lopsided history.

    Finally, Genesis 2:1 says "thus" (i.e., as in Genesis 1) were the
    heavens **completed.**  Surely the earth wasn't complete in God's eyes
    until humans had arrived as a separate people "in His image."

10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution
--------------------------------
    Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance & necessity +
                mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long 
                time periods.
    
    Theistic Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance & necessity + 
                         mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long
                         time periods + GOD.
    
    1. Misrepresentation of the Nature of God (Matthew 5:48, Isaiah 6:3,
       Jeremiah 32:17, I John 4:16, Deuteronomy 32:4).
    2. God becomes a God of the Gaps (I Corinthians 8:6).
    3. Denial of Central Biblical Teachings (II Timothy 3:16).
    4. Loss of the Way for Finding God (Romans 7:18-19, Luke 19:10).
    5. The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is Undermined (Philippians 2:5-7).
    6. The Biblical basis of Jesus' Work of Redemption is Mythologized
       (Romans 5:12, Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:16-18).
    7. Loss of Biblical Chronology (Genesis 1:1, Matthew 24:14, Exodus
       20:11, Galatians 4:4).
    8. Loss of Creation Concepts (God creating without using available
       material).
    9. Misrepresentation of Reality (Bible carries the authoritative seal of 
       truth from which mankind can't depart).
    10. Missing the Purpose:
        a. Mankind is God's purpose of creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
        b. Mankind is the purpose of God's plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
        c. Mankind is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (I John 4:9).
        d. We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).
        e. Heaven is our destination (I Peter 1:4).

|    11. Mathematically, the human race cannot reach back more than
|        10-15,000 years at the most.
    
    Some folks have asked offline about my source for this information. 
    You can find it at http://www.best.com/~dolphin/popul.html
    
    Mike

re .41

|	It does not say, it talks of six creation days. A day can mean an age,
|	for example if one spoke of Shakespear's day. Hence, the Genesis account
|	helps us to see the six different stages of creation (also compare 
|	Genesis 2:4 were the whole creation event is spoken of as "In the day").
    
;    That isn't quite correct, Phil.
    
;        Creation Days: Solar or Age?

	Mike,

	I have had a quick look through your reply, and couldn't see were you
	address Genesis 2:4, KJV reads "These are the generations of the heavens
	and of the earth when they were created, in the day the LORD God made
	the earth and the heavens." and then the chapter goes on to discuss
	the creation event in more detail. Here the whole event is spoken of
	as happening in "in the day" but covers the whole six days of creation.
	This would contradict Genesis chapter 1 if "day" always meant 24 hours.
	
	Genesis 2 goes onto to discuss the events that happened on the sixth
	day before Eve was created. Could Adam have done all these things in
	one literal day?.

	What are your views on the pictures being sent back from the Hubble satellite
	telescope. God is the author of the physical laws and science observes
	these laws, hence they can calculate how long it would take for the images
	they are seeing to reach them. God gave us intelligence to use, so
	seeing that the scientists observations show that these distant star systems
	are much older than 6,000 years. Then why should we refute this?. Though
	human wisdom is foolishness with God, when based on observations of laws
	of whom Our Creator is the author it must have some credence. So I would
	say to you that holding to the view that God created the heavens and the
	earth in six literal days would turn persons away from the Bible, for
	phyical laws of whom God is the author say otherwise.

	The Hebrew word translated "day" has a variety of meanings, which a W. Wilson
	author of Old Testament Word Studies p109 wrote would include, "a long time,
	the time covering an extraordinary event." 

	Phil.

    Phil, let me provide some source background first.  I verified
    this information while I was attending Arizona St. University.  A local
    rabbi verified this in my Tanakh class.  ASU's Hebrew language professor 
    is a Messianic Jew that attends my church.  He also verified this.
    
|	I have had a quick look through your reply, and couldn't see were you
|	address Genesis 2:4, KJV reads "These are the generations of the heavens
|	and of the earth when they were created, in the day the LORD God made
|	the earth and the heavens." and then the chapter goes on to discuss
|	the creation event in more detail. Here the whole event is spoken of
|	as happening in "in the day" but covers the whole six days of creation.
|	This would contradict Genesis chapter 1 if "day" always meant 24 hours.
    
    5. Whenever "yom" is limited or modified by a numeral or ordinal, it is
       always a literal, solar day.  "Olam" is "age."
    
    You can verify in your Strong's Concordance that for every appearance of
    "day" in Genesis chapters 1-31, the Hebrew has "Yom."  In accordance
    with the rule above and the plain context that is obvious in English,
    the first chapter shows "Yom" with a modifier.  Genesis 2:4 doesn't
    have a modifier with "Yom."  Even Strong's definition, and Prof. Daniel
    Ben-Gigi verified this for me, shows that when "Yom" is figurative the
    associated term defines its meaning.  This is when it could mean
    anything from "a few days" to "an age," depending on the associative
    term.  They explained to me that the associative term used in Genesis
    2:4, the use of Hebrew poetry, and the obvious context show that "Yom"
    means the 6 days of creation.  They also showed me that the KJV's
    "generations" is misleading, while the NAS is correct.  The Hebrew
    Bible (JPS translation) says, "Such is the story of heaven and earth
    when they were created.  When the Lord God made earth and heaven."  
    
|	Genesis 2 goes onto to discuss the events that happened on the sixth
|	day before Eve was created. Could Adam have done all these things in
|	one literal day?.
    
    Something else the rabbi and professor explained to me about Hebrew 
    poetry (which you sort of referenced) is that it is often written like
    our newspapers are written today.  You have the detailed articles and
    the summary/overview articles on any headline story on the front page. 
    This is what Genesis 1-2 is doing.

|	What are your views on the pictures being sent back from the Hubble satellite
|	telescope. God is the author of the physical laws and science observes
|	these laws, hence they can calculate how long it would take for the images
|	they are seeing to reach them. God gave us intelligence to use, so
|	seeing that the scientists observations show that these distant star systems
|	are much older than 6,000 years. Then why should we refute this?. Though
|	human wisdom is foolishness with God, when based on observations of laws
|	of whom Our Creator is the author it must have some credence. So I would
|	say to you that holding to the view that God created the heavens and the
|	earth in six literal days would turn persons away from the Bible, for
|	phyical laws of whom God is the author say otherwise.

    I think the dilemma caused by the HST is humorous.  How can the stars
    be older than the universe, like they are now claiming?  How can the
    "parent" be younger than the "child"?  My view is that God is omnipotent,
    omniscient, and omnipresent.  It is not beyond Him to create a universe
    that looks older than it is.  It is not beyond Him to create the
    universe using something that appears to be a Big Bang, yet in reality
    is completely different.  Relativity may play a bigger role than we
    think.  For instance, how do you know we would arrive at the same
    estimates if viewing the universe from another vantage point?  The U.S.
    Naval Observatory discovered large gains in time by traveling around
    the world in Boeing 707s and Concordes equipped with cesium-beam clocks
    (Hafele & Keating, "Around-the-world atomic clocks: observed relativistic 
    time gains," Science 117 (1972): 168).  Time is alterable and is a
    function of gravity!  There are also new speculations and theories that
    show light may not be as constant as we once thought.  If this is true,
    all our estimates will have to be tossed out the window and we're back
    to the drawing board.
    
|	The Hebrew word translated "day" has a variety of meanings, which a W. 
    |Wilson uthor of Old Testament Word Studies p109 wrote would include, "a 
    |long time,	the time covering an extraordinary event." 
    
    Well, as I pointed out, Mr. Wilson should know there is more than 1
    Hebrew word that can mean "day" and the role of modifiers are important, 
    along with context, like it is in any language.
    
    God always uses the simple things to confound the wise and it is no
    different in Bible hermaneutics.  A literal and infallible view removes
    the apparent contradictions that picking and choosing out of context
    creates.
    
    Mike

re .48

	Mike,

	Thanks for your reply. I haven't got a Strong's Concordance though I'd
	love to own one. I have a friend who owns one though.

	Phil.

    Here are some Creation Science sites for you to check out.  There are
    too many to list, but you'll find links to most of them at these sites.
    
    Answers in Genesis & Creation Science Foundation - 
    	http://www.ChristianAnswers.Net/aig/aighome.html
    
    Creation Science - 
    	http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
    
    Lambert Dolphin - Christian Physicist
    	http://www.best.com/~dolphin/
    
    Garth Wiebe - Christian DECcie
    	http://www.ultranet.com/~wiebe/e.htm
    
    Internet Center for Creation Science -
    	http://schdist23.bc.ca/iccsnet/creation.html
    
    Creation Research Society -
    	http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/crs/crs-home.html
    
    Center for Scientific Creation -
    	http://www.creationscience.com/
    
    Creation Science Association of Atlantic Canada -
    	http://www.navnet.net/csaac/csaac.html
    
    Creation Outreach -
    	http://onramp.ior.com/~kjc/creation.html
    
    Creationism Connection -
    	http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
    
    Biblical Creation Society (UK) -
    	http://www.pages.org/uk/bcs/

    {from the Center for Scientific Creation's Dr. Walt Brown}
    
        How Do Evolutionists Respond to What You Say? 
    
    They generally ignore it. A few will criticize the evidences in forums
    where I cannot respond. Once every year or so, a knowledgeable 
    evolutionist will agree to an oral, strictly scientific debate. These 
    debates are usually lively, but always cordial. Unfortunately, little
    can be covered in a 2 1/2-hour debate, and the substance of the debate
    cannot be widely distributed, studied, and recalled by others as it could 
    if it were in writing. 
    
    The biggest single step that I believe could be taken to clarify the 
    creation-evolution controversy is to have a thorough, written, 
    publishable debate. Both sides would lay out their case, much as I have 
    in The Scientific Case for Creation on pages 3 - 81. Then we would respond, 
    point-by-point, to the case for the other side. Both sides would have
    the right to publish the finished exchange. I have sought such a dialogue 
    since 1980, but have not had a serious and qualified taker. Many leading 
    evolutionists know of the offer.  When I speak at universities and 
    colleges, I offer the students a $200 finder's fee, if they can find an 
    evolutionist professor who will complete such a debate. I am repeating 
    that offer here to the first student who can find such a science professor. 
    
     Several excuses are given. 
    
        1."I don't have time." 
               Response: Many do not have time, and of course, they need
               not participate.  Nevertheless, others have the time to write 
               books attacking and misrepresenting creationist positions. Many 
               are teaching what I feel are outdated evolutionary ideas and 
               refuse to place themselves in a forum where they must defend 
               what they are teaching. If you are going to teach something,
               you ought to be willing to defend it, especially if taxpayers 
               are paying your salary. 
    
        2."I don't know enough about evolution." (Carl Sagan's answer) or
          "I am only qualified in one aspect of evolution." 
               Response: A team of people could participate in the 
               evolutionist side of the debate. 
    
        3."I don't want to give a creationist a forum." 
               Response: Of the thousands of scientific controversies, the
               creation-evolution controversy is the only one I know where 
               some scientists refuse to exchange and discuss the evidence. 
               That is an unscientific, closeminded position. 
    
        4."Creation is a religious idea. It is not science." 
               Response: Creation certainly has religious implications, but
               much scientific evidence bears on the subject. Only the 
               scientific aspects would be permitted in this written debate. 
               An umpire would remove any religious, or antireligious,
               comments from the exchange. If my only comments were religious, 
               the umpire would strike them from the debate. I would have 
               nothing to say, and the evolutionist would win by default. 
               (Incidently, evolution also has religious implications.) 
    
        5."Any debate should be in refereed science journals." 
               Response: The journals you refer to are controlled by
               evolutionists. They would not provide a platform for such a 
               lengthy debate. Nor do they publish any research questioning 
               evolution and supporting creation.  The publishers of these 
               journals would be severely criticized by many of their
               clientele and advertisers if they did. (The few evolutionists 
               who participate in oral debates often admit how much they are 
               criticized by other evolutionists for participating in a 
               debate.)  In a well-publicized case, one journal, Scientific
               American, withdrew a contract to hire a very qualified 
               assistant editor when it was learned he was a creationist. 
    
    If anyone wishes to explore the written debate idea further, I would
    welcome a letter regarding the debate. But if you are going to ask a 
    qualified evolutionist to participate, watch out for the excuses. 
    
    How do evolutionists respond to the scientific case for creation? Most
    try to ignore it. As you can see from the above excuses, even qualified 
    evolutionists avoid a direct exchange dealing with the scientific evidence. 
    
     Copyright � 1995 - 1997: Center for Scientific Creation Site 
    by Falcon Interactive 

    btw - Moon math is covered at http://www.creationscience.com/ under the
    Technical section.

    Mike,
    
    Read "Space" by michener sometime.  The Strabismuslike statement in .51
    is beyond coincidence to me.
    
    meg

    Just a few words on the evolution thing.
    
    1) Mike, I'd love to read your scientific argument for creation.  Is it 
    posted somewhere I can reach from my workstation?
    
    2) Sagan was an astronomer and he was right in saying that he was not
    qualified to argue a theory which lies in the realm of biology.
    
    3) I think you'll find that the vast majority of biologist who are
    qualified to argue do not give enough credence to the creationist
    approach to take it seriously.  They're probably not avoiding you.
    
    -dave
    

D. Russell Humphreys
---------------------
Dr. Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Lousiana Sate University in
1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years
he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company. Since
1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics,
geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and
the Particle Beam Fusion Project. Dr. Humphreys is an adjunct professor of
Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego,
a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the
Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico.  His latest book is "Starlight and
Time."

Gerald L. Schroeder
-------------------
Dr. Schroeder is an applied physicist and an applied theologian who received his
undergraduate and doctoral degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.  He spent 35 years working for the DOD (Atomic Energy Commission's
Nevada Nuclear Testing Site) where some of his work was in developing a method
for locating epicenters of underground nuclear explosions.  A resident of
Jerusalem and a lecturer and adviser around the world, his reseach has been
reported in "Newsweek," "The Jersualem Post," and numerous scholarly
publications.  He is also the author of "Genesis and the Big Bang."

Lambert Dolphin
---------------
Dr. Dolphin received an AB degree with high honors in physics and distinction in
mathematics from San Diego State University in June 1954. After two years of
graduate study in Physics and Electrical Engineering at Stanford University,
(1954-1956), he joined the staff of SRI International (formerly Stanford
Research Institute), in Menlo Park, California where he remained almost
continuously for the next 30 years.  He left his position at SRI as a Senior
Research Physicist in 1987 to pursue small-scale independent geophysical
consulting services and to devote the bulk of my time to Bible teaching,
writing and Christian counseling.

Steven A. Austin
----------------
Steven A. Austin earned his Ph.D. in geology from Pennsylvania State University
in 1979. He is the chairman of the Geology Department at the Institute for
Creation Research Graduate School in Santee California. His book "Catastrophes
in Earth History," video, "Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for
Catastrophe," and computer software, "Catastrophe Reference Database," are
significant contributions to creationist geology..

Donald B. DeYoung
------------------
Dr. Donald B. DeYoung (Ph.D., M.Div.) is a Chairman of the Physical Sciences
Department at Grace College, Winnona Lake, Indiana.  He teaches physics,
astronomy, electronics, and mathematics, and is a member of the Indiana Academy
of Science, Physics Teachers' Association, and the Creation Research Society
Directors Boards.  He is the author of "Astronomy and the Bible" and "Weather
and the Bible."  His credentials are Professor of Astrophysics, B.S., Michigan
Technological University, Houghton, Ml, 1966; M.S., Michigan Technological
University, Houghton, Ml, 1968; Ph.D., Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1972.

Robert V. Gentry
-----------------
Dr. Gentry is a research physicist whose area of expertise is the geophysical
phenomena of radioactive halos. He worked for thirteen years as a visiting
scientist in the Chemistry Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He spent
several years in the defense industry and in college and university teaching.
He has authored or coauthored over 20 research papers many of which have been
published in "Science and Nature."  Dr. Gentry courageously testified on behalf
of creation science when the Arkansas law requiring the teaching of creation
along with evolution in public schools was challenged by the ACLU in 1981.

Duane T. Gish
--------------
Dr. Gish is perhaps the most outspoken modern creationist having participated in
hundreds of creation/evolution debates on university campuses around the
country. He received his Ph.D. in biochemistry for the University of
California at Berkeley. He has been a director of the Creation Research
Society since 1963, served as Professor of Natural Sciences at Christian
Heritage College, and has served as Associate Director and Vice President of the
Institute for Creation Research since 1972. He worked for 18 years in
biochemical and biomedical research at Cornell University Medical College, the
Virus Laboratory of the University of California at Berkeley, and the Upjohn
Company in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He has written numerous technical articles and
books concerning the evidence for the creation of living things and the
inadequacy of evolutionary theory.

Henry M. Morris
---------------
Dr. Morris is considered the founder of the modern creationist movement. He is
founder and former president of the Institute for Creation Research and
cofounder and former president of Christian Heritage College. He received his
Ph. D. in hydrology from the University of Minnesota. He served as the
chairman of the Civil Engineering Department at the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University for thirteen years. He is the author of
numerous books and articles in the field of creation science and has
participated in numerous creation/evolution debates. 

Walt Brown
----------
Dr. Walt Brown is the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation. He is a
retired full colonel (Air Force) and a West Point graduate with a Ph.D. in
mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At M.I.T.
he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. Dr. Brown has taught college
courses in mathematics, physics, and computer science. While in the Army, he
was a paratrooper and ranger. His most recent assignments during his 21 years
of military service were Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air
War College, tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, and
Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in
Albany, New York. Since retiring in 1980, Dr. Brown has been actively involved
in speaking, writing, and research in creation-science.

|    1) Mike, I'd love to read your scientific argument for creation.  Is it 
|    posted somewhere I can reach from my workstation?
    
    I've never attempted such a paper.  There's plenty of info out there on
    the Web by people much more qualified than myself.  Especially some of
    the people in -1.
    
|    2) Sagan was an astronomer and he was right in saying that he was not
|    qualified to argue a theory which lies in the realm of biology.
    
    Well that is one.  What about all the others?  I'd also be suspicious
    if Dr. Walt Brown was the only one being ignored, but he's not.  There
    are people more qualified than him that are ignored as well.
    
|    3) I think you'll find that the vast majority of biologist who are
|    qualified to argue do not give enough credence to the creationist
|    approach to take it seriously.  They're probably not avoiding you.
    
    So is it more of an "elitist snob" attitude?  How about the
    black-balling and bias within the scientific community and their
    publications?  There are documented cases of this.
    
    Mike

    >I've never attempted such a paper.
    
    Woops, my misunderstanding.  Sorry.
    
    I did read Schroeder's "Genesis and the Big Bang".  I think it was in
    response to a recommendation you made to me some time back.  I had many
    criticisms of it.  If you've read it, and you'd like to discuss it,
    I'll revisit it and take down a few notes.
    
    >Well that is one.  What about all the others? 
    
    I don't know the others.  Wouldn't venture a guess.  But it's
    important to remember the different diciplines of science involved
    here.  Sagan challanged creationism in terms of cosmology, a subject
    with which he was very familiar. Evolution is a whole different subject.
    
    >So is it more of an "elitist snob" attitude? 
    
    Maybe for some Mike, I don't know.  But it's probably more like having
    limited time and resources and not being able to address every
    challenge that comes their way.  
    
    >How about the black-balling and bias within the scientific community
    >and their publications?
    
    Well, if you want to play in their field, you have to play by their
    rules.  If you want to champion creationism in the context of a
    scientific discussion, you have to support your claims with facts.  An 
    observable creator is the one whopping piece missing in the creationist
    theory.  If one could point to, measure, detect, etc... an omnipotent
    creator, then the creationist theory would be given a LOT of credence.
    It's easy to theorize that an omnipotent God orchestrated the flood.
    And it's impossible to disprove.  But the one fact that's needed to
    support this theory is missing... the omnipotent creator.  You see, you
    need to explain things in terms of observations.  Science has been
    burned more than once when it strayed from this.  Remember the notion
    of the "ether" in space?
    
    
    -dave
    
    

>    Remember the notion
>    of the "ether" in space?

    Ohh!  So *that's* why the spaceships in StarWars go "whoose"
    in space!
    
    Anyway.  Scientists, can however, be a bit blind and biased.

    Sagan, in his book _Cosmos_ mentioned that the current theory
    about how old the universe is contradicts what all the major
    religions believe, except.... it corresponds to timespan of
    the Hindu god, Brahma, the creator, did something - "but that's 
    just a coincidence."

    Tom

    And some theories are far more credible than others.  There's a theory
    that all matter is attracted to all other matter.  It's called the
    Theory of Gravity and we all pretty much accept it as fact.  But it
    remains a theory and who knows, maybe you'll just float out of bed
    tomorrow morning and disprove the theory.  The Big Bang is far far
    shakier.  Just a couple observations to support it.  But, as weak is it
    is, it's the best thing going because at least there are those
    observations.  The theory of relativity is up there with gravity.  It's
    just a matter of making the observations to support the theory (like
    gravity).  Evolution is shakier because of the indirection.  Since you
    can't actively observe the past, you have to make assumptions, like,
    the production of C14 in the sunlite surface of the earth long ago was
    similar to what it is today.  Maybe wrong, maybe right, no one knows
    for sure.  The confidence levels are lower than those for gravity and
    relativety, but they're still higher than the competing theories, so
    that's the one you go with.  One more thing about evolution... Many of
    the theory's components can be observed actively in the preent, like
    random mutations, evolving traits (not species (yet) but traits), and
    natural selection.  Just pieces to the puzzle.  And it's important to
    realize that the theory itself evolves and gets tuned as new facts come
    in.  I hate it when someon points out a mistake in Darwin's original
    theory and claims, therefor, that the entire modern theory of evolution
    is bunk.  
    
    -dave

re.45

Hi Mike,

Thanks. Your concern is biblical accuracy which I hold also
as an imperative. I will consider your reply with all its
points. 

Regards,
Ace

The Impossible Religion
-----------------------
There are only 2 possible explanations for intelligent life beyond earth, if it
exists.  It either evolved by chance, the only view allowed in public schools,
or God created it.  The first possibility, in spite of its official status, can
be quickly dismissed on mathematical grounds alone.  Eminent British astronomer,
Sir Fred Hoyle, points out that, "Even if the whole universe consisted of
organic soup from which life is made the chance of producing the basic enzymes
of life by random process without intelligent direction is approximately 1 in
10^40,000.  Such a number is beyond comprehension, but a comparison can be made.
The likelihood of reaching out and by chance plucking a particular atom out of
the universe would be 1 in 10^80.  If every atom in this universe became another
universe the chance of reaching out at random and plucking a particular atom 
out of all those universes would be 1 in 10^160."  As a consequence of the
mathematics alone, Hoyle concludes that Darwinian evolution is most unlikely
to get even 1 poly-peptide sequence right let alone the thousands on which
living cells depend for survival.  But even if that happened, chance would have
to go on to develop millions of kinds of cells, each with thousands of complex
chemical processes and progress at the same time in delicate balance with one
another.  Furthermore, these cells, and there are trillions in the human body,
must be gathered into nerves, eyes, heart, kidneys, stomachs, intestines, lungs,
brains, fingernails, etc., all in the right place and each functioning in
proper order with the rest of the body.  The odds of all of this happening by
chance are not even calculable.  The truth is that evolution is mathematically
impossible and this cold fact can be easily proven.  Then why does this theory
persist?  It should have been abandoned long ago.  Hoyle accuses the
evolutionists of self-interest, unfair pressure and dishonesty in keeping their
theory alive, and in forbidding the only alternative, divine creation, from
being heard.  Hoyle concludes, "The situation, the mathematical impossibility,
is well known to geneticists, and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle
decisively on the theory.  Most scientists still cling to Darwinainism because
of its grip on the educational system.  You either have to believe in the
concepts or you will be branded a heretic."

{"A Cup of Trembling," by Dave Hunt, p. 376}

re: .61 PHXSS1::HEISER

This note is so full of fallacies it's hard to decide where to begin, but...

>There are only 2 possible explanations for intelligent life beyond earth, if it
>exists.  It either evolved by chance, the only view allowed in public schools,
>or God created it.  The first possibility, in spite of its official status, can

Why only two? How about the seeding of intelligent life by other life? When you 
say God created it I assume you refer to the Christian God, why not any of the 
myriad of the other Gods that people have dreamt up through the ages, or some 
God that we've never heard of? What do you mean by chance? One thing that 
creationists frequently overlook is that chance alone does not account for life 
in Darwinian theory. Although chance plays a part in the details the laws of 
physics and chemistry must be such that it can occur, and obviously that is the 
case. 

>be quickly dismissed on mathematical grounds alone.  Eminent British astronomer
>Sir Fred Hoyle, points out that, "Even if the whole universe consisted of
>organic soup from which life is made the chance of producing the basic enzymes
>of life by random process without intelligent direction is approximately 1 in
>10^40,000.  Such a number is beyond comprehension, but a comparison can be made

I wonder where he gets his numbers. Numerous independent experiments have 
created the basic molecular building blocks of life simply by running a current 
through an approximation of the primordial soup. The bottom line is that, given 
the correct conditions, organic molecules (and some inorganic ones) tend to 
organize themselves into what we consider these basic building blocks. The key 
is that the process is NOT truly random, the laws of physics and chemistry 
predisposes these kinds of materials to act this way. It's like fixing dice, the 
outcome of a die roll is no longer truly random.

>out of all those universes would be 1 in 10^160."  As a consequence of the
>mathematics alone, Hoyle concludes that Darwinian evolution is most unlikely
>to get even 1 poly-peptide sequence right let alone the thousands on which
>living cells depend for survival.  But even if that happened, chance would have

Again demonstrating a lack of understanding of the basic processes at work here. 
This is NOT a purely random process! And a crux of evolution theory is that the 
thousands of sequences did not happen at the same time (that would be truly 
miraculous) but were driven by natural processes over billions of years toward 
where they are today. 

>living cells depend for survival.  But even if that happened, chance would have
>to go on to develop millions of kinds of cells, each with thousands of complex
>chemical processes and progress at the same time in delicate balance with one
>another.  Furthermore, these cells, and there are trillions in the human body,

No. Although chance plays a role, it is mostly in determining the details, not 
the overall process. Again, these millions of processes, cells, etc. did not 
develop all at once, but one at a time over millions of years. 

>proper order with the rest of the body.  The odds of all of this happening by
>chance are not even calculable.  The truth is that evolution is mathematically

Agreed. That is why it was not pure chance, not even close. 

>impossible and this cold fact can be easily proven.  Then why does this theory
>persist?  It should have been abandoned long ago.  Hoyle accuses the
>evolutionists of self-interest, unfair pressure and dishonesty in keeping their
>theory alive, and in forbidding the only alternative, divine creation, from

The only alternative? That shows a real lack of imagination. That, combined with 
the only evidence for creation being "It's too complicated for me to understand" 
combined with "Look what it says here in this book" keeps evolution the best 
theory we have. 

>of its grip on the educational system.  You either have to believe in the
>concepts or you will be branded a heretic."

Actually, there may be some truth in this statement. Although if someone can 
find a theory with more hard, reproducable, supportable fact than evolution you 
will see it eventually accepted as the new theory, and evolution would be tossed 
into the dustbin. Such is the way of science. 

Finally, even if you accept the creator theory, you are always left with the 
creator of the creator question. And begging that question by saying that he 
always was is just as dishonest as Hoyle accuses Darwinists of being.

Steve

    |This note is so full of fallacies it's hard to decide where to begin, but...
    
    It's is kind of ironic that you agree with a few points in your reply
    even after stating this.
    
    |Why only two? How about the seeding of intelligent life by other life? When you 
    
    You are still faced with the dilemma of needing life to create life. 
    No matter what god you choose, you still have the same problem with
    your final statement:
    
|Finally, even if you accept the creator theory, you are always left with the 
|creator of the creator question. And begging that question by saying that he 
|always was is just as dishonest as Hoyle accuses Darwinists of being.
    
    The fact is that the God of the Bible has set Himself apart from all
    other gods.
    
    This is being discussed over in YUKON::CHRISTIAN too.  You may be
    interested in notes 42.5 and 20.20.

re: .63 PHXSS1::HEISER

    |This note is so full of fallacies it's hard to decide where to begin, but.
    
    It's is kind of ironic that you agree with a few points in your reply
    even after stating this.

Not really. I said that it's full of fallacies, not 100% fallacy...

    You are still faced with the dilemma of needing life to create life. 

No, I'm not. You've missed my point entirely if this is what you read. (Or I made 
the point poorly if that is what I wrote). My point is that you need a system of 
natural laws that support a process of evolution that eventually (after a very 
long time) results in life, given the proper environment. Prior life is NOT 
required. 

    The fact is that the God of the Bible has set Himself apart from all
    other gods.

I don't even know how to respond to this. Simply saying God always was does not 
cut it. Again, give me a testable theory... Ya know, even the Pope has said there 
is something to evolution theory.

In general what I see from Creationists is an attack on evolution theory. While 
that is O.K. (and even good), what is required are facts to back up the alternate 
theory. That is what is lacking from Creationists, and why they usually aren't 
taken too seriously. Even the most ardent proponent of evolution theory realizes 
that there are some holes, but it is still the best that we got. And even if 
Hoyle's math decidedly shot evolution down (which I don't believe is the case) it 
does not move one iota toward proving creationism.

Now the coded passages in the Bible hold some interest as concrete evidence toward 
proving the Bible as more than your average book. There are still a lot of 
questions to be answered, but I'll be watching that debate. 

    This is being discussed over in YUKON::CHRISTIAN too.  You may be
    interested in notes 42.5 and 20.20.

I thought that was an SRO conference (more or less), i.e. non-Christians need not 
apply. Who is defending the evolution side?

Steve

    If prior life isn't required, you still need a Designer.  You don't get
    order from chaos.
    
|cut it. Again, give me a testable theory... Ya know, even the Pope has said 
    |there is something to evolution theory.
    
    All the more reason for me to reject it.
    
|In general what I see from Creationists is an attack on evolution theory. While 
|that is O.K. (and even good), what is required are facts to back up the alternate 
|theory. That is what is lacking from Creationists, and why they usually aren't 
|taken too seriously. Even the most ardent proponent of evolution theory realizes 
|that there are some holes, but it is still the best that we got. And even if 
|Hoyle's math decidedly shot evolution down (which I don't believe is the case) it 
|does not move one iota toward proving creationism.
    
    Well you can't scientifically prove either side.  Both are lacking
    complete scientific evidence.  Both rely on empirical evidence and
    neither cannot trace back to 0 seconds without faith.

|Now the coded passages in the Bible hold some interest as concrete evidence toward 
|proving the Bible as more than your average book. There are still a lot of 
|questions to be answered, but I'll be watching that debate. 
    
    Frankly, I don't see how the lower probabilities (yet still astounding)
    of acrostics proves the Bible is more than a prayer book, but greater
    (more astronomical) probabilities aren't good enough to prove creation.

|I thought that was an SRO conference (more or less), i.e. non-Christians need not 
|apply. Who is defending the evolution side?

    I don't think it is SRO.  Nobody defends evolution in there but there
    are some who are theistic evolutionists/progressive creationists.  You
    may be interested to see that Garth Wiebe didn't agree with Hoyle
    either.
    
    Mike

re Note 253.65 by PHXSS1::HEISER:

>     If prior life isn't required, you still need a Designer.  You don't get
>     order from chaos.
  
        Actually, you CAN get order from chaos.  It's been seen in
        the laboratory;  it's been seen in simulations.

        (Perhaps your stumbling block is that you see random
        arrangements of atoms and molecules as "chaos".  There may
        certainly be a chaotic element in that, but the atomic and
        sub-atomic world is very well structured, and apparently the
        very nature of matter leads to the possibility of emergent
        order at larger levels.)

        Bob

re .66

;	Actually, you CAN get order from chaos.  It's been seen in
;       the laboratory;  it's been seen in simulations.

	Bob,

	Sorry to nit pick, but if it is observed in a laboratory then
	is this behaviour not witnessed in a controlled environment?.

	
	Phil.

    Phil, my first thoughts as well.  Perhaps Bob can give us an example.
    
    Not even light behaves in space as it does in a lab.

    If prior life isn't required, you still need a Designer.  You don't get
    order from chaos.

Of course you can. Every time to elements come together to form a compound 
you are doing just that. The order in a solar system shows that. Again, they 
are all governed by physical laws that allow and tend towards order in some 
cases. That aside, is God chaos? If not, who was his designer? After all, you 
can't get order from chaos (or nothing).

    Well you can't scientifically prove either side.  Both are lacking
    complete scientific evidence.  Both rely on empirical evidence and
    neither cannot trace back to 0 seconds without faith.

But creationism is based nearly 100% on 'faith'. Evolution is based on 
repeatable observations. Where is the empirical evidence in creation? 

    Frankly, I don't see how the lower probabilities (yet still astounding)
    of acrostics proves the Bible is more than a prayer book, but greater
    (more astronomical) probabilities aren't good enough to prove creation.

The difference is that I don't buy Hoyle's astronomical probabilities. As 
nearly as I can see, they are not based on any accepted scientific evidence. 
Again, the bottom line is that given the right conditions life is not a long 
shot, it's closer to a certainty. The long shot may be in getting the right 
conditions to begin with, but with the billions of suns in billions of 
galaxies containing untold billions of planets over billions of years, even a 
long shot becomes a near certainty. (Hey, I guess the odds are 'astronomical' 
in a literal sense! :^)

Steve

|But creationism is based nearly 100% on 'faith'. Evolution is based on 
|repeatable observations. Where is the empirical evidence in creation? 
    
    There's lots of it out there.  You just have to look in journals that
    aren't limited to the evolutionary slant.  Check out some of the Web
    sites posted.
    
    Mike